Discussion
I'm slightly confused by the public sector representatives who claim a 1% pay rise is unreasonable given inflation is higher.
I have worked in 5 private sector jobs and in no role did I get a set pay rise. My pay was as per my contract, ie a 0% pay rise each year. My pay was increased by moving up, or working elsewhere.
Why should the public sector be any different?
Is this an unreasonable thought?
I have worked in 5 private sector jobs and in no role did I get a set pay rise. My pay was as per my contract, ie a 0% pay rise each year. My pay was increased by moving up, or working elsewhere.
Why should the public sector be any different?
Is this an unreasonable thought?
johnfm said:
I think you've worked at some pretty s
tty places.
Unless management or the business is so poor that there is no growth in revenues year on year.
Yes there was growth, and lots of it. I negotiated double figure pay rises on pain of leaving given my performance.tty places.Unless management or the business is so poor that there is no growth in revenues year on year.
Those that had not performed, did not contribute to growth, and were not promoted received no pay rise by default.
I'm questioning why there should be an automatic pay rise even for the most moronic.
Sticks. said:
Traditionally pub sec pay is much less affected by the peaks and troughs of the economic cycle. That'd be part of the reason people join the pub sec.
I still find it a tough idea to understand: you're utterly crap and you get x% rise. Assuming the good ones move on, this means a massive average pay increase per year given the minimum is positive.Sticks. said:
From what I know, in the CS at least, it's mostly based on performance. Sometimes incorrectly described in the media as a bonus. In a poor economic climate, and shrinking CS, good staff won't move on. Friend of mine recently said, iirc, in DWP, 6 days off sick in a year and proceedings start, which is on a par with pri sec I'd have thought.
Interesting as I have friends who are/were in the civil service and they also mentioned 'bonuses' (I have heard these friends refer to them as such so I don't think the media are off the mark).The CS still has a minimum pay rise each year though, and from talking to civil servants it seems you get some 'bonus' even if you are useless (though there is a performance related element). The top guys I know left and work in the private sector defence industry now. The rubbish ones are working their way up the pay scales.
Edited to add, I don't know about the 6 sick days in the CS. I know that enforcing such a thing in local government is a career and time minefield (close family member works in local government and made the mistake of trying to remove a staff member who had been off for months).
Edited by 0a on Thursday 1st December 19:06
Sticks. said:
I think it's just te way a pay award is shaped now. From what I know, 'adequate' performance won't get yo much, and anything below that wold start inefficiency proceedure, or whatever it's called.
Yes, local govt is different and diverse, I suspect.
I know one CS guy who called another CS acquaintance 'the most incompetent guy he'd ever met'. This guy walked home from Whitehall and was in cooking his dinner at 5:30 every day (I shared a flat with him). He got a 'bonus' and moved onto the next level of pay. Even his own colleagues say he's useless.Yes, local govt is different and diverse, I suspect.
Yet his income rises, year on year on year.
More PH might be that he drives an Audi TT soft top.
valiant1 said:
Are you sure it's not down to incompetent/lazy managament for not dealing with the problem?
I used to work in retail management and there were plenty of poor performing staff who were encouraged to go for a promotion simply to get them off 'our' area as it was easier to palm the problem off to someone else rather than sitting down and actually dealing with it.
Oh, and I received a yearly cost of living increase every year (even through the last recession). Would have felt hard done by if I never got it!(and it was a st company to work for)
Yes I'm sure it is, isn't this the whole problem?I used to work in retail management and there were plenty of poor performing staff who were encouraged to go for a promotion simply to get them off 'our' area as it was easier to palm the problem off to someone else rather than sitting down and actually dealing with it.
Oh, and I received a yearly cost of living increase every year (even through the last recession). Would have felt hard done by if I never got it!(and it was a s
t company to work for)Randy Winkman said:
When the public sector gives performance pay, the Daily Mail and Daily Telegraph go nuts about "bonuses".
So long as it is performance based, I have no problem with £100k bonuses for good staff in the PS. The problem is that these 'bonuses' are in fact normal pay for many - ie just a pay rise. Russ T Bolt said:
They are one off payments, generally of a few hundred pounds . Did you not read my post above ?
Yes we're agreeing - I wouldn't mind a one off payment of £100k if matched by performance, even to a chap On £20k.The issue is not paying people that do well (in theory I'm happy with £100k), but that it's treated as part of the pay package/pay rise for almost all (it is, I don't know any CS who didn't get some bonus, or whatever you want to call it).
DS3R said:
The term "bonus" is misleading; for most of the public sector (ie true civil servants) pay rises were split, a small annual increment designed to increase with inflation. the remainder was called a "performance bonus", set at different levels dependant on how well one did, so there was the opportunity to have a bigger pay rise due to top performance.
However, the performance element was non-consolidated, so the winner from this was the tax payer, as the basic pay element no longer rises as fast as it did, as the "bonus" portion does not form part of pensionable pay.
so, even with the same overall payrise as before, the amount of pension a civil servant is accruing is smaller than it was, so the tax payer wins.
I read this several times, and yet I'm not able to see why a payment based on (even imaginary) performance ratings should not be called a "bonus" when ALL CS staff I know call it their "bonus". However, the performance element was non-consolidated, so the winner from this was the tax payer, as the basic pay element no longer rises as fast as it did, as the "bonus" portion does not form part of pensionable pay.
so, even with the same overall payrise as before, the amount of pension a civil servant is accruing is smaller than it was, so the tax payer wins.
Quite strange.
johnfm said:
Good management, by definition, would weed out and dismiss the moronic. As a result, all workers would earn a share of the companies growth. The better ones would bYenefit by more generous rewards. That is how you manage and motivate a good workforce - without which your company performance suffers.
Have you ever worked in management and tried to get rid of someone because their performance is 5% below that of their colleagues (as opposed to someone who is utterly incompetent - easy to sack)? From your post you have not been in, managed or run a sucuessful company. 0% pay rise plus inflation is the only way to give a deserved real pay cut.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff